You do know how to write your thoughts down so well, Benjamin. Perhaps much practice, but it looks like you are a naturally good writer. It also allows me to formulate my replies better, or at least I hope I can.

Because of your specific and well-expressed assumptions, I can point to the overall structure that I am proposing and I hope it will surprise you that it covers both science and philosophy. But let me also mention that the proposed overall structure involves recognizing a very subtle distinction. If you miss the subtle distinction, then my words do not make much sense.

Basically, one cannot start out with pointing to anything that can be declared with a 1. In the example of your writing, I see you look for the best in the cosmological field (1st) and have that number 1 be the lead.

Contrast this with the structure I promote, starting out with a Placeholder 0 instead and then looking for answers.

Let me put the real items in place, instead of using numbers.

• When looking for the leading discipline about cosmological questions, one may indeed end up thinking that Science is the correct approach. As soon as one is looking for a single agency, then one finds a number 1 agency of specialists in the field. I claim this is a common mistake.
• When starting out with a placeholder 0 instead, then Science can be proposed as the agency to pursue cosmological question, but in effect Science itself is then first scrutinized as belonging to a larger field (declared with the Placeholder 0). Not the cosmological options are viewed right away, but rather the choice whether to trust that Science is indeed the correct (and sole) route.

Investigating Science, it turns out that there are two realms captured within Science, and we all kind of know that already.

• The gold standard of Science is when results can be repeated.

That should give away immediately that the materialization process cannot be declared scientifically using the gold-standard route. We cannot replicate the materialization process.

• And that is then the silver standard found within Science.

Before arguing this point further, I should now ask if you see the structure I propose: the first thing one must do is investigating the proposed lead?

--

If one asks which sport is the sport that is the best in the world, then it turns out that the answer cannot be declared. Rather, one must put Placeholder 0 in that spot to remain honest and truthful.

As soon as a person decides that football is the 1, then we know that for this person all sports will not need any further investigation. As such, we have the self-fulfilling prophecy above water. The answer is made a self-evident truth.

By picking Science as the one discipline that can best answer the questions, you are telling me that your brain sought out a 1 as answer. You did not establish a Placeholder 0 first and you did not doubt yourself or the answer when you wrote that "it's up to scientists to answer the empirical questions".

Next, you endear me with begging the question if universe' nature is indeed empirical.

So, I see you pick 1 first, and next you beg the question.

I beg the question first, and any 1 is scrutinized for what it is and how it behaves.

---

I am therefore following the structural set up of

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... making 0 the first step.

You appear to be following the structural setup of

1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and placing a 0 somewhere at will.

I do have evidence that zero is always part and parcel of any mathematical system, and that it is functional. As such, I place it in first position, and then I make sure it is indeed placed and kept in first position at all times.

---

Some household items:

• The word universe in my dictionary is a collective word that includes everything there is, seen and unseen. I am very disappointed that there are people that pillaged the word (statisticians, for instance, borrowed it for their fields of investigation) and toy with that everything-including word as if one can also have two or more fields called Life, or five fields called Nature, and it then indicating a separate reality indeed. I do not toy with words.

I am not opposed to having matter start in various spots. The materialization process may have entailed a number of starting processes and not a single overall starting process. In my mind, this is not an important distinction since matter is always the result of original energy having been damaged. In either case, the reason for matter is then found with the prior state of the universe. Said differently, separation (0) was not created in our material universe, but in the prior state. It does not matter if that 0 ended up establishing matter (that can be seen as various forms of 1 by themselves) in one process or a number of ensuing processes.

• That brings us straight back with Science, because Scientists cannot declare what belongs to the prior state of the universe and claim a gold-standard position.

While I can have some scientists follow me completely (most end up not grasping what I am saying), and when comparing notes there is always an interesting overlap, but all scientists share one trade that holds them back: When they are not presented the evidence in detail, they remain blind.

Case in point is what Newton would declare outstanding evidence. With using the divergent behavior of all matter (on a collective outbound journey), one can conclude that the prior state ended with an inward motion. What went in, must come out.

And that is where scientists cannot follow me because they will agree to the logic, but they refuse the factual evidence. They end up denying that the material universe as a whole can indeed be seen as factual evidence. They refuse to declare that they are seeing a storyline indeed.

The reason is that they are looking for a 1 answer, and not for a Placeholder 0 to begin with. They have made up their minds already what we can (and cannot) know about the prior state, and they defend themselves using the gold standard of science while the gold standard of science is not available. They put a 1 in place (Science is the best discipline in the world), while in reality their 1 is not a 1, but something between 0 and 1. They hold a silver standard in their hands, and yet their mouths speak of a gold standard approach.

Once they come down to the silver-standard level, then they will invite folks like me to the table. But they function in a gold-standard mentality (Science is the 1 discipline), and refuse to consider the silver conversations.

* Benjamin, I claim that I am not speculating. I claim that this Placeholder 0 approach is the actual structure of our universe itself.

* If you see that there is no 1, no actual overall reality that is true for everything, then I have done my work right.

* As easy example: money. When approaching the world of money, then one must start out with placeholder 0 and recognize that at some point in time there was no money yet. It got established (just like matter got established, all agree on this).

The Greek invented money and we can therefore place that 1 of the financial institution with them. They made something that was not real at first real to the point it is now the most important thing on the planet (think many people).

We can find another 0 within this created reality, because entire nations rise in the morning to make sure their wallet does not have a 0 in it.

I hope the P - Q line comes back to memory. We start with 0, then we immediately have the extreme 1 and when moving further away from the center, the 1 becomes less and less until we end up with 0 again.

We united ourselves around money, and yet today the financial world itself shows how there is a lot of competition among currencies. There is no 1 among all currencies, though with the link to oil one can declare the dollar as 1st. Yet each currency has its own domain, and they compete, like 1s in the binary system, who the first 1 is. Money is a Placeholder 0 reality.

• The implications for human life is that we can recognize the fanatics that claim football is the only sport deserving that name. We can recognize ourselves about putting scientists on a much bigger throne than they deserve. We can recognize that we hold ideas in our heads considered to be true without a doubt, but they are only considered without a doubt because we are the ones not doubting these ideas.

It also means, from a cosmological perspective that we should stop looking for the 1, but instead should be looking for the truths in all their contexts.

• The theory I support (Big Whisper) does pose questions about the prevailing Big Bang theory (Lambda-CDM) because through comparison one can see that scientists pulled together evidence that they could indeed recreate, while they do not have a storyline why things should have been the way as proposed for moment zero. They added all their knowledge and come up with a setup; they did not use the Placeholder 0 approach, and simply accepted all, while one should doubt some of the aspects they are not doubting.

There is no super-hot condition at the start of the materialization process in the Big Whisper model, while both do agree on an extremely dense start of the process. With that, one can see that the scientists put incorrect information in their model because they to not have the Placeholder 0 in mind.

• There is a religious storyline possible that is the same for the scientific storyline (different words, same structure).

— -

Thank you, Benjamin, for letting me write this to you. I have the feeling you can understand this quite well, plus can articulate yourself well for where you do not understand my words.